Defense Tech: Progress for Future Combat Systems?


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Dissent Tech Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand 'Ol Osprey Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Progress for Future Combat Systems?

This article first appeared in Aviation Week's Ares weblog.

At the Joint Expeditionary Force Experiment (JEFX) in Nevada this past April, run by the Air Force Global Cyberspace Integration Center, some critical technologies for the Army's Future Combat Systems program were put to the test. According to Army FCS spokesman Paul Mehney, the initial tests -- which sought to put FCS's networking technologies through their paces, proved successful overall.

"Our role was to provide the ground maneuver network portion," Mehney says, noting that the Army was able to take its "Build 1" software -- which is part of the communications software that will allow FCS to communicate across the network -- and use it to move images and data from sensors, whether they were unmanned aerial vehicles or ground sensors, to Air Force assets, which then allowed the Air Force to conduct fire missions based on near real-time intelligence from Unattended Ground Sensors operated by the Army.

(The Build 1 software is scheduled to go live during FCS's Spinout 1 in the 2011 time frame.)

While the Army and Air Force can obviously already communicate with one another, historically there has been no real way to move images over networks between the two services, or if it is done in special circumstances it is not necessarily in real time. But the tests in April allowed the Army's network and combat developers to take a look at how the FCS network can be used in future applications where there's a call for a joint fire mission. According to Mehney, "it also allowed our combat developers and engineers to take a look at that Build 1 network and limited Build 2 which is ongoing right now, to take lessons learned at JEFX to say "OK, how can we better manipulate development of the network for joint missions?"

Crucially, not only was the Army a participant in the JEFX tests, but the Marine Corps and the British were there as well, acting as ground observers. Plus, Marines manned a networked Humvee so they could see the network in action.

Read more of this story, how other jets are going to kick the JSF's butt in 2015, frustrated bleeding hearts in the US mil and Estonia's play for cyber dominance from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

Comments

[url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.aocsale.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com/][color=#800080][b]Age Of Conan Gold[/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold [/b][/color][/url]
[url=http://www.aocsale.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold[/b][/color][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com/][color=#800080][b]buy age of conan gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b]aoc gold[/b][/color][/url]
[url=http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com/][color=#800080][b] buy aoc gold [/b][/color][/url][url=http://www.buyfastgold.com/][color=#800080][b] buy aoc gold[/b][/color][/url]

your site is good ,welcome to our sites
http://www.buyfastgold.com

http://www.buy-cheap-aoc-gold.com

http://www.aocsale.com

http://buy-aoc-gold.hellgate-pd.com

http://buy-aoc-gold.rgtrcredit.com

Posted by: aoc gold at May 20, 2008 08:48 PM

Roy,

Read the General's words:

http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/05/14/9146-commentary-army-modernization-necessary-successful-long-overdue/

I personally don't think the vehicles and network need to be fielded simultaneously. If the network is not ready, field it when it is...in already purchased lightweight deployable, survivable vehicles that have plenty of organic capabilities to detect threats and survive them. Likewise if the vehicles are not ready, delay their fielding until we finish paying for the war. No hurry. No drop dead dates. Plenty of joint potential as discussed in this article posted by DT.

Despite what the GAO and media like to portray, costs are not spiraling out of control in FCS. Cost-control is the number one priority.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 06:45 PM

One other problem with the term "Future Combat System" is,is it the computer technology & how inter connected the system is to each other,or is it the new line of proposed armored vehicles that are supposed to come online? I mean,that's the problem,what if the computer system works ,but the new armored vehicles don't,or vice versa? What if one half of the system works but the other half doesn't,do you throw out the whole thing?

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 15, 2008 04:57 PM

Roy, think electricity. Current vehicles cannot generate the amount required while hybrid-electric engines can.

But B-Kit Abrams/Bradley/HMMWV can interoperate with FCS manned ground vehicles and spin outs of many FCS systems will be fielded with the current heavy force.

Germany had insufficient time to finish their high tech weapons and were being bombed while they tried. We are not being bombed (nor were we in WWII while we geared up) and have ample time....with interim spin outs being fielded sooner. The Germans also faced two fronts in close proximity while our two fronts were on opposite sides of the world...and we fought on one front for most of the time. The Germans lacked the logistics to continue,as well.

There was a lot more to it than theorizing that more less capable systems surpasses fewer of highly capable systems.

Now we face future logistics threats where oil will be in short supply and expensive. That sounds to be like we will be REQUIRED to fight with fewer systems than we enjoyed in the past, just to sustain that force with available expensive oil.

Also sounds like a good reason to train more Soldiers and Pilot Airmen using simulation to save oil and wear/tear on our high tech systems. FCS is all about simulation aboard stationary vehicles. Army aviation is equally involved in simulation.

So bottom line is that FCS technologies such as armor going into MRAPs, UAVs, ground robotics,and ISR dissemination can help us fight current wars. They will also help the Army survive against low-tech fighters with lethal systems like IEDs and RPGs, or survive against high tech systems used by future foes. Its win-win, with applicability to ALL conflict and all stability operations.

UAVs can find survivors/victims and communications can assist National Guard aid workers in civil support operations for stateside disasters or the aftermath of terrrorist attack. They can secure our borders. Each FCS manned ground vehicle produces the equivalent of 300 homes worth of electricity. Lessons learned by military hybrid-electrinc power and future fuel cells will also support our nation's transformation to new fuel technologies.

Posted by: Cole at May 15, 2008 04:19 PM

It sounds good, but do we have the manpower to accommodate a mass production vehicle mindset?

Posted by: William Ballard at May 15, 2008 01:27 PM

The biggest problem with the Future Combat System is its marriage to new combat vehicles that haven't come out yet.Why can't the Future Combat System be married to current weaponry like the Stryker Brigades or the Heavy (Abrams/Bradley) Brigades? That's common sense.That is most likely what killed off both the Commanche & Crusader,& may kill off the Marine's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
Why couldn't they have built those weapons based on current technology & then add the whiz bang FCS gadgets to ALL weaponry in our arsenal? So what,they canceled these big ticket items because they couldn't get the cook's PDA to work? Concerning these whiz bang gadgets,someone's full of s**t & they are trying to fill our heads with bull s**t fantasies of SciFi gizmos that may never work in our life time.This is what did in Nazi Germany,they concentrated on a few "high tech" weapons instead of mass producing simple weapons like both the U.S. & the U.S.S.R. did.They couldn't defeat or compete with the mass produced numbers of simple tanks like the Sherman Tank or T-34 Tank.Massed produced propeller aircraft overwhelmed Germany's new jet fighters(& that is why I say the the F-22s are not "miracle workers").

Posted by: Roy Smith at May 15, 2008 01:00 PM

Progress for Future Combat Systems?

Comments

Post a comment